No prosecution over CTV building collapse

A criminal prosecution against the designers of the CTV building was abandoned even though engineers said it was clear substandard design led to the collapse.

On Thursday, police announced they did not have sufficient evidence for a successful prosecution.

“If I’d taken my heart’s advice, we would have prosecuted. I can’t take my heart’s advice, I have to use my head,” Detective Superintendent Peter Read said.

Documents released by the police show the Crown Solicitor had concluded there was enough evidence to lay charges of negligent manslaughter against designers Alan Reay and David Harding, after a three-year $1.2 million police investigation.

“It is our opinion that, had the whole building complied with codes and practices of the day, the building, though damaged, would have had sufficient resilience not to collapse suddenly and in a pancaking fashion,” BECA said.

“Dr Reay’s omission to discharge his obligations in regard to the allocation of appropriate resources to the design were the reason why the design errors were not identified and corrected, and was therefore a substantial and operating cause of the deaths.”

BECA and the two peer reviewers agreed that Dr Reay and Mr Harding did not fulfil their duty to design up to code – a major departure from expected standards, which was a substantial cause of the collapse.

This sounds fairly damning. I wonder how many other buildings around the country are substandard?

“A key difficulty for the prosecution would be in proving the CTV building would not have collapsed in the absence of the identified design errors,” he said.

“The expert peer reviewers were cautious about drawing this conclusion.”

An American peer reviewer, who is not named, said it was possible the collapse could have occurred in the absence of design errors due to higher than expected ground motions in combination with the building’s lack of resilience.

The documents explained that the building code at the time did not demand adequately strong columns for resilience in high-risk zones.

However, a New Zealand peer reviewer pointed out other buildings of a similar age and type withstood the quake and that the designers did not take into account the building having to move sideways in a quake.

I don’t think anyone expected such a dangerous earthquake in Christchurch. That other buildings withstood the quake could be due to range of factors. The specific site the CTV building was on may have been particularly vulnerable.

The building’s designer Dr Reay said he was “deeply anguished.”

In a statement, he said: “I have tried to understand why the building characteristics changed after the September 2010 earthquake and then ultimately collapsed.

“It is my strongest hope that from this tragedy every possible lesson is learned.”

I’m sure he is anguished.

Certainly lessons will have been learned, it’s important that they are.

Gezza

I think it is wrong for the deputy solicitor general to pre-empt & prejudge the outcome of this trial & that the prosecution should have been taken. The questions raised by PG imo are most properly answered in Court. I also agree with Strong For Life. There are others who should also be in the dock. In this country people & civil agencies collectively responsible for disasters that cost lives too easily get to walk away from being properly held to account for their collective culpability for involuntary manslaughter.

Kabull

We need to stand back and ask whether the demand ‘for accountability’ is actually reasonable, or whether it is a case of ‘somebody did wrong – lets get the ba****ards’. The age of the CTV building was such that the designers, engineers, builders, etc were identifiable and still alive. What would the reaction have been if it were 10 years older? What if it had been 50 years older? What if those responsible for it were no longer alive? Nothing would have changed as far as the relatives of the victims were concerned EXCEPT that there would be no scope to jump on the blame train. Don’t get me wrong – I have total sympathy for those directly affected. But I also think the designers etc will pay a big price for the rest of their lives.
Introducing a corporate manslaughter offence because nobody has been charged might be seen as a petty, populist, and vindictive attitude.

Alan Wilkinson

Gezza

I guess you’ve only got to look at the Bain trial to know the answer to that. Although in that case a jury trial was appropriate, even if I think the outcome & what we have heard since the verdict were not, there are some cases involving complexities beyond the average citizen that demand a judges-alone trial, as in some other jurisdictions. I see this as one.

Alan Wilkinson

But the accused would have a right to a jury trial in this case. I think the technical/systems and standards failures have already been investigated and addressed. I’m not convinced an attempt to further pillory individuals adds anything to either prevention or restitution. Their CVs and consciences already have a big black cloud and there seems no evidence of intent, awareness or criminality.

Alan Wilkinson

I’d also add that the argument that other buildings survived has to be tested against the maps that showed most buildings impacted severely followed the lines of old water courses which obviously had affected the ground on which they stood.

Gezza

I guess I might find your argument easier to accept if people weren’t fined for unkowingly or unintentionally exceeding the speed limit, which law is ostensibly intended to prevent harm to people. (Notwithstanding the obvious fact they’re cynically rigidly enforced because they’re a gold mine for any government.)

Alan Wilkinson

That’s ridiculous, Sir Gerald. People who unknowingly or unintentionally exceed the speed limit should be fined for careless driving. It is the ones who knowingly and deliberately exceed the speed limit because in the circumstances it is perfectly safe to do so who should not be fined.